The use of CKM

Thomas Beale thomas.beale at openehr.org
Sat Jan 28 03:47:47 EST 2017


Bert,

there is no text book for that yet, although programming principles are 
generally applied these days. But just as in programming, one can build 
a class that doesn't use a separate class for its inner structure, if 
that structure is not re-usable. There is undoubtedly some sub-optimal 
modelling in the CKM archetypes, but I suspect what you are looking for 
is some machine-processable general rule that you can use in software to 
e.g. always know that when you hit a CLUSTER, it will be a new 
archetype? I don't think this kind of thing can ever be guaranteed.

What I foresee creating is a handbook of 'patterns' in the same sense as 
the Gang-of-for software patterns. It might be possible one day to 
machine discover which pattern a given archetype conforms to and to do 
something with that knowledge at runtime, but we are not there yet.

- thomas


On 27/01/2017 23:51, Bert Verhees wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,  Now I read it back I see that my previous reply was not 
> my.most understandable English.
>
> I try again. Is there somewhere described that archetypes should be 
> structured in cluster archetypes which fill slots in container entry 
> archetypes?
>
> I see that it is done a lot in CKM, but I also see (must be) leftovers 
> in which the entry - archetypes contain the structures itself, and in 
> this way disturb the building block idea.
>
> Like in programming languages are described paradigms, it would be 
> good to have that for archetypes. An advantage of formal structure 
> descriptions would be that discussion would become possible. Another 
> advantage would be that newcomers would have some directions.
>
> So, that is why i hsve this question: are there some paradigms 
> described which shape new archetypes for CKM?
>
> Thanks
> Bert
>
>
> Op vr 27 jan. 2017 17:03 schreef Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl 
> <mailto:bert.verhees at rosa.nl>>:
>
>     Op 27-1-2017 om 16:26 schreef Thomas Beale:
>     > Hi Bert,
>     >
>     > I think your statements describe things as they are today - or maybe
>     > you meant something different?
>
>     Thanks for replying
>
>     That is nice, I must have found a leftover from the past and I did not
>     find this strategy somewhere formalized.
>     Is there description a formal strategy of desirable structures?
>
>     Best regards,
>     Bert
>
>     >
>     > - thomas
>     >
>     >
>     > On 24/01/2017 11:33, Bert Verhees wrote:
>     >> Hi
>     >>
>     >> I have a remark about the use of some archetypes in CKM.
>     >> I think that it would be nice to have archetypes of some specific
>     >> content, for example, medication, always of type cluster, and have
>     >> container archetypes, for example in this case, of type action to
>     >> hang them in a composition.
>     >>
>     >> If this was a policy, then the idea of building blocks would be
>     much
>     >> more usable.
>     >>
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > openEHR-clinical mailing list
>     > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
>     <mailto:openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
>     >
>     http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>     >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org

-- 

	*Thomas Beale*
Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation 
<http://www.openehr.org>
Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society 
<http://www.bcs.org/category/6044>
Health IT blog <http://wolandscat.net/> | Culture blog 
<http://wolandsothercat.net/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20170128/13fdefc4/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list